MPEG 4, Windows Media 9 At War

Andy Tai writes "According to this News.com report, backers of MPEG 4 are protesting Microsoft's licensing fee structure for Windows Media 9, which is up to 50% less than MPEG 4's. They accuse Microsoft of blocking the progress to move to an 'open standard' (MPEG 4), posing unfair competition and threatening consumer choice. Of course, what is really needed is a third choice, a totally Free Software media codec solution that's competitive with both Windows Media and MPEG 4."

Comments

MP3 is not MPEG3

[missing000]

You don't understand what an mp3 is.
mp3 IS NOT MPEG3. It is MPEG1, layer 3.
MPEG4 is not an mp3 replacement.
See this for details.

Neither standard is open

[rknop]

From a free software purists point of view, does it matter who wins? Neither format is an "open" format.... MPEG-4 may be developed by an industry consortium, but as with so-called RAND licencing, unless I misunderstand something their licencing fees make it impossible to implement the code legally in free software. (Is this the case? I'm guessing that MPlayer's mpeg4 support is dubious legally.)

What would be best is that if they make it contentions and messy enough fighting each other that both standards are weakend. That will make Ogg Theora look even that much more attractive to companies and the world at large once it comes out, and hasten the support of Ogg Theora. With some luck, that will become the standard, or at least a standard, that is so widely supported that those of us who care about and pay attention to these things can just use it.

-Rob

Re:Neither standard is open

[benwaggoner]

The licensing terms aren't that bad, and getting better for newer versions. For example, the forthcoming AVC MPEG-4 codec will be free to implement in all no-cost software. Even now, you get a pass on the first 50,000 distributed players. MPEG-4 is less difficult do deal with than MP3 licensing, and there are certainly lots of stuff in the Free Software community that can author and play back MP3 files!

MPEG-4 is open because full implementation details are public. While you certainly need to pay to do commerical products with MPEG-4, all details are available for implementation. This NOT true of Windows Media 9. There are nearly a dozen companies today competing to develop the best MPEG-4 encoder. But the only company that can produce the WM9 codec is Microsoft.

And Ogg Theora is still vaporware, with a public release not until this summer. It's based on VP3 and Vorbis, neither of which are as efficient as today's MPEG-4, let alone the next generation codecs like AVC and the AAC-SBR audio codec, both of which should be in products this year.

Re:Wow.

[oliverthered]

Wrong,
it's the abuse of a monoply position to unfairly leverage another market.

So if they bundle WMP9 with a monopoly product and then set the licensing at a loss making level then that's unfair, since there leveraging a monopoly product (windows) by intergrating WMP9, and then undercutting the competition on content costs.

OpenDivX is dead

[FooBarWidget]

I'm surprised people even think about OpenDivX today. OpenDivX is dead, for a long time now (more than a year).
In case you didn't know what happened: Project Mayo suddenly closed the CVS, removed the source code and used that source code to create their own, proprietary DivX 4 codec. OpenDivX isn't developed anymore. It's codebase is dead. The latest release (from more than a year ago) is full of bugs.

Oh, and DivX is not OpenDivX in case you didn't know. They are 2 completely different things.

Re:Let me get this straight....

[benwaggoner]

No.

MPEG-4 is open because all implementation details are public. You can get a copy of the standard, and build your encoder, decoder, server, etcetera based on it. No NDA's to sign or anything. You have to pay license fees in some cases if you distribute commerical products, but writing the software is something anyone can do.

This isn't true with Windows Media 9. While some details are avalable, not all are, and some are under restrictive licenses.

Re:yet another stupid anti-microsoft thread.

[cant_get_a_good_nick]

Does anyone remember that browsers didn't use to be free until Internet Explorer came along ?
Netscape was de-facto free well before IE came along. Early on, they figured that they needed to get the browser out to everybody to make it THE platform. Anyone that actually paid for it, well that was found money. They really wanted to make money from servers, bu Apache and IIS killed them on this.

Re:Progress to move to an open standard

[platypus]

Him: "What about them? It's easy for people to recreate technologies once the expensive research has been done, Vorbis is based on similar ideas to MP3 for instance. Creating them in the first place takes money though, who's going to do that if all the codecs have to be free of charge?"

At that point I usually shut up, because I don't have a good answer.


I'll help you. The answer is science. This old fashioned thing they do on universities. There are these people called scientists, who gave and many still give a flying shit about "patent license fees". Without them, all these "lots of smart people" working on compression schemes would still live in a cage and go in the woods to berry for their daily food.

The idea that mp3 was so original that ogg wouldn't exist without it is blatantly wrong. At best, it showed that there is a market for that which motivated the creator, but nothing more.
All the foundations were well known long before mp3 emerged.